Talk:Lazy Dog (bomb)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

WWII[edit]

While talking to a colleague at work I found out that his grandfather had used these same bombs during WWII. He even had a few in his desk drawer to show me. So I believe the information on this weapon should be updated to include WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.136.113 (talk • contribs)

Image fix[edit]

The pic which was added today isnt linked properly. Could someone fix this, please? --ChainSuck-Jimmy 07:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mk.44 bomb[edit]

In the Christopher Chant's book "World Encyclopedia of Modern Air Weapons" (Patrick Stephens Ltd. 1988) I found slightly different description of Mk.44 bomb with Lazy Dog elements. They aren't driven down only by gravity. According to Mr.Chant, Mk.44 containing in the forward part about 10000 Lazy Dogs and in the rear a high explosive load 21,8 lb (9,9 kg) of TNT. On the optimum height above the ground level this HE load explodes, driving downward a hail of Lazy Dogs with very high velocity. Maybe this bomb has some different versions, with or without explosive load?83.6.225.170 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVIL USER: Coca-cola dog bomb theorists as soon as they declassfied webcasters... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.175.56 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Banned"?[edit]

No evidence provided of a ban.

They are no longer used because they were not very effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.180.83 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment, provide some sources for this information and the page can be updated to reflect this. Rakki9999111 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]